> just because they aren't creating value to you does not mean that they are't creating value to someone else. True, but follow that logic, and replace 'create

> just because they aren't creating value to you does not mean that they are't creating value to someone else. True, but follow that logic, and replace 'create' with 'revoke/destroy'. These apps are proposing a tiering system that favours people willing to trade money for convenience, and _simultaneously depriving those how aren't willing or can't_. So this pay to use system is scalping limited resources at a cost to others, and profiting middle men piggybacking of existing infrastructure. I think the article made a clear argument for why this is not okay. The proposal that you can require a credit card for each reservation escalates the situation, because now in order to stop scalpers from operating, the bar for entry is raised. If people are independently abusing the system, then this is the logical way to combat the problem. But if it is a parasitic entity then regulation is sensible way to protect the business and its customers (eg. some who might not have credit cards). Often when these arguments are raised people argue as back and forth as if economics and law are the only considerations. What about considerations towards decency? How annoyed would you be if you tried going to a restaurant, saw empty car spaces installed by your local council, but people standing in them holding signs saying "Reserved. Yours for $4". Finally, you arrive at the restaurant but get told that is is full. A guy out the front waves you down, 'psst. I have 10 reservations - want one? $5 bucks.' Not only that, the guy is part of an organization that has done it to all the other restaurants in the area.